elongated double space

[Kimmie B]

A person on my team is getting funky spacing when he types a double space at
the end of a sentence. Instead of using normal proportional spacing, Word
stretches out the double space so that it looks more like a triple or
quadruple space.

Single spaces between words behave normally, as do all other characters.

Is there some setting that causes elongated double spacing?

To add a wrinkle, he has both Asian and Arabic characters installed on his
computer.

 

[Herb Tyson [MVP]]

Some combinations of settings can produce funky stuff if full justification
is being used. Does it still act odd if justification is turned off? What
version of Word is being used? (If Word 2007, take a look at the Layout
options in Word Options - Advanced, very bottom of the dialog. Are any of
them turned on? All turned off is the default for Word 2007--if any are
turned on, ask why, and see if they're related to how Word treats spaces.)

Herb Tyson MS MVP
Author of the Word 2007 Bible
Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com
Web: http://www.herbtyson.com

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

Is there a reason for typing two spaces after a sentence?

 

[Greg Maxey]

Cheryl,

Brace yourself ;-)

Yes. Several of my clients want two spaces after periods and the
paying client has the last word. Several industries/corporations
still request/require two spaces regardless of the fact we now type on
a computer instead of a typewriter. There is no set-in-stone rule on
spaces after periods.

Cheryl

 

[Kimmie B]

Thanks very much Herb.
We use Word 2003, and full justification is turned off. All our docs have
text aligned to the left. Any idea what those funky settings might be?

The problem seems to be unique to one user. We all start docs from the same
template, and no-one else's computer generates the elongated double spaces.
However, when we open a doc that that one user created with the elongated
double spaces on our own computer, the odd, elongated spacing persists within
the doc, even in new sentenes and paragraphs that someone else subsequently
adds. If this writer opens and works on a doc that someone else started, the
double-spacing seems to behave normally.

So, this is what I surmise. The template is fine. The problem originates
with settings in one person's computer. Opening the doc on someone else's
computer does not solve the problem. The problem seems to attach itself to a
doc.

As to others who have so generously weighed in on the
double-vs.-single-space-at-the-end-of-a-sentence issue, regardless of what
anyone thinks is proper or old-fashioned, Word is behaving strangely and I'd
like to get it fixed.

Any clues as to how to fix the problem would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Can you send me a portion of one of the problem documents? I may not be able
to figure out the problem, but I'd be interested in taking a look.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Herb Tyson [MVP]]

I've never encountered the problem, so it's hard for me to speculate--the
settings I was thinking of I'm not sure get embedded in a document. The fact
that the problem attaches itself to a document is interesting. Like Suzanne,
I'd be interested in taking a look to see if something leaps out at me. If
you'd care to email me a sample, my email address is herb at herbtyson dot
com (disguised a little to try to thwart spam address harvesters).

--

Herb Tyson MS MVP
Author of the Word 2007 Bible
Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com
Web: http://www.herbtyson.com

 

[Beth Melton]

Yes. Several of my clients want two spaces after periods and the
paying client has the last word.

This says it all! I have a client who insists on two spaces between
sentences too. Even if I don't agree I'm paid to do what they want. <grin>

~Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Thank goodness my clients trust my advice (but then I'm an editor and not a
developer).

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Beth Melton]

I forgot to mention those who do insist are government and state agencies.
;-)

~Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP

 

[Herb Tyson [MVP]]

My clients trust my advice, but they don't always follow it--and drafts
often go through a dozen or more contributors. So, when I receive drafts, I
change "<space><space>" into "<space>", change incorrect whiches to thats,
and fix other stuff they might be inclined to ignore or change back. And
THEN I turn tracking on. ;-)

Herb Tyson MS MVP
Author of the Word 2007 Bible
Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com
Web: http://www.herbtyson.com

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I won't use tracking at all. If they want to see what I've done, they can
use Compare Documents, but most don't care.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

If I found you changing my "which"es to "that"s, I wouldn't hire you a
second time!

The "rule" that restrictive relatives must have "that" is a completely
fabricated invention.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I confess I'm with Herb on this one, though. UK English tends to favor
"which" even for restrictive clauses, but it always sounds very stilted to
me. The only time I'll use "which" is when there's ambiguity about whether
the clause is restrictive or not.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

If I found you changing my "which"es to "that"s, I wouldn't hire you a
second time!

The "rule" that restrictive relatives must have "that" is a completely
fabricated invention.

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

I think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have
commas around them, restrictive relatives don't.

 

[Greg Maxey]

Would you two mind taking this discussion elsewhere?

It is completely off topic and it is very unlikely that it is helpful to the
OP. You Ms. Barnhill are only feeding a troll which you claim you do not
do, and bloating your post numbers. Don't you think that it will be harder
for the folks at Microsoft at review time, since your posting numbers will
be artificially inflated with these back and forth post with Peter and
finding quality example of your helpful threads for the PG to look at will
be harder. Sort of like when you answer questions that have already been
answered.

As for what is right or wrong in this case I don't know and certainly don't
care. What we all do know is that even if Peter losses the argument he
will simply stops arguing - he never ever concedes that he is wrong.

Thank you.

I confess I'm with Herb on this one, though. UK English tends to favor
"which" even for restrictive clauses, but it always sounds very
stilted to me. The only time I'll use "which" is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not.

--
--
Greg Maxey

See my web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org
for an eclectic collection of Word Tips.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is
marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly...who knows
the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a
worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high
achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while
daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat." - TR

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas anyway
because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The ambiguity
rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing someone else's
writing and am not confident of the writer's intent...

And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use "that" in a
nonrestrictive clause.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

I think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have
commas around them, restrictive relatives don't.

 

[Greg Maxey]

Bloated post count = Bloated post count + 1

Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas
anyway because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The
ambiguity rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing
someone else's writing and am not confident of the writer's intent...

And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use
"that" in a nonrestrictive clause.

--
--
Greg Maxey

See my web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org
for an eclectic collection of Word Tips.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is
marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly...who knows
the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a
worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high
achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while
daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat." - TR

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

What Herb said is he "change incorrect whiches to thats," and that
can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which."
You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to
whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with
"which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't
be used with a non-restrictive).

Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he
says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there
are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend
that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use
"which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb
evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in
restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not
disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think
"which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply is
what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that."

Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward"
was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context, I
thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time
I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not."

In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and
ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a
restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally)
when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding
of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as well).

As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which an
author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous experience
with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writer is
not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean that
the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's
nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

What Herb said is he "change incorrect whiches to thats," and that
can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which."
You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to
whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with
"which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't
be used with a non-restrictive).

Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he
says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there
are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend
that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."